Is Ockham's Razor Actually Valid, or Just Something People Say to Sound Smart?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com... for 10% off on your first purchase.
Love content? Check out Simon's other TH-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
www.youtube.co...
This video is #sponsored by Squarespace.
Sources:
plato.stanford...
plato.stanford...
iep.utm.edu/oc...
Sober, Elliott (2015). Ockham's Razors - A User's Manual. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Spade, Paul (1999). The Cambridge Companion to Ockham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karl Popper, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, September 15, 2021, plato.stanford...
Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD for 10% off on your first purchase.
Occams is NOT "the simplest answer is correct". When you say it like that, you've predestined it be wrong. The actual Occam's Razor is "the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely". Razors are supposed to be neither proofs nor conclusions, they're supposed to be tools for choosing starting points. And i blame the movie Contact for introducing the world to that idiotic misunderstanding of Occam's.
This video should have been sponsored by Manscaped 😁
@8:25 Time traveler 😲
Doesn't the concept of Ockham's Razor say that the "simplest explanation is USUALLY the correct one"? If true, then even the Razor itself carves out the an allowance for exceptions, no?
@@StfuFFS Stay tuned for when Simon tries to cover Incompleteness. ☺
8:50 🚨Errata🚨 "geocentric"😱
Heliocentric! 👍
🙏🙂
FactBoi
My issue with it is this. People tend to forget the wording, "The simplest solution is MOST OFTEN right." Not always. I see a lot of folk use Ockham's Razor as an absolute instead of an increased chance.
There you go. Now I don’t have to make that point, thank you.
It's not even necessarily that they're the most often right, they're just the best place to start.
also, our hardwired neurological bias is to prefer complex theories. Imagine asking someone why something didn't get done. If they give just one excuse it feels fake. But if they give two excuses that feels truthier. But then we apply the same thinking to things like science theories. We need Occams razor to remind us not to do that.
I didn't like the word "unnecessary" in "... anti-razor opposing the unnecessary elimination of complexity ..." cause it suggests it's possible to eliminate some things, which one should do then as per Ockham.
It comes back to the fallacy fallacy. just because something doesn't follow rules of logic doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong
It bothers me this episode wasn't sponsored by a shaving razor
Manscaped missing out on a primo marketing chance.
I'm sure there's a simple explanation
They didn't pay enough
Or, wasn't there a phone called the Razr that was brought back recently?
I've found that Ockham's razor is best applied in storywriting. One should maintain deepness while not overdoing complexity.
I’m not sure I agree with this completely. As a general rule, sure , you shouldn’t make your stories so convoluted that they don’t make sense, but if done carefully, an extremely complex story can be very enriching for the audience who understands it
someone has never played 999
In writing, the equivalent is 'Chekhov's gun'. Don't add entities unless they are relevant.
If you describe something, like the decor of a room, it has to serve a purpose. Either to better impress the wealth or status of the owner (or lack thereof) or because items that were described will be relevant later, or something. Not just to show your skills at describing decor, or to satisfy your inner interior decorator. Unless you're writing for an interior decoration magazine. You get the point. Don't add the life story of every single person the main character interacts with, which is something beginning writers tend to do too much.
You can also play with this by only briefly describing something only for it to become important later. An excellent example of that is the movie 'The Usual Suspects'
@@isbey case and point: the marathon games (and pathways into darkness)
I disagree, story writing can have complexity and probably should(in my opinion). Razor is more for theoretics.
I also appreciate Christopher Hitchen's Razor: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The true curse of Oak Island.
If someone says they have evidence, you have to actually listen to it though. If you just shout over them whenever they try to show you the evidence and then claim you haven't seen any, then you're probably...the US supreme court...
@@ivanivanovic5857 you are correct, but a lot of people seem to think they have evidence of something when all they really have are statements taken out of context and then repeated by others.
The difficulty lies in knowing what actual evidence exists, then accounting for bias (both for and against) and then making the correct inferences which the evidence leads you to. Much easier said than done.
No that's not true
@@squorsh which isn't?
The biggest point I got out of Ockham's Razor was not necessarily about complexity, but more about assumptions or unproven hypotheses. If you can explain a thing using proven (or highly supported) ideas plus one new idea, that is better than an hypothesis that uses multiple new ideas, even if the new one seems "simpler." For instance, a genie or other magical creature just doing things is very simple, until you start to look into how many highly supported ideas it either ignores or contradicts. If you can explain happenings without an unproven genie, the genie is unneeded and should be cut away.
Very true. I find its good as a counter towards creationism but rarely effective in convincing people. Its also good at countering things like Aliens. Often people think that "aliens" or "god" are simple but they're invoking things that are far more complex i.e. invoking a omnipotent being is always more complex than whatever other explanation was given.
A major problem is Ockham's Razor can favor ignorance. As what seems simple may only be that way because a person doesn't understand the implications of what they are suggesting. Flat Earth, for example, seems simpler, since its "look I don't see any curve" but in reality it messes up the world map, not to mention the entire realm of physics.
@@TearDownGenesis very true. The thing with the flat earth is the same as my example with the genie, it seems simpler, but it contradicts known or heavily supported ideas. But that is why I don't think Ockham's Razor is truly about simplicity, but more about invoking multiple unproven ideas when one (or none) is sufficient.
This should also not be used as an argument for ignorance, though I also have seen it used and derided as such, it just means that if someone truly wants to show their more complex solution is the right one, they need to do the work and prove it, no one is going to take their word for it.
Your idea of new discoveries, hypotheses, and theories based on previously - proven, consistent, reproducible, and predictive, accepted body of established science is quite a strong principle.
That body of accepted science is part of the current model of science, The Standard Theory of Physics or The Standard Model.
"extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof" is a good one though I'm not sure who said it
my physics teacher's theory about little demons explaining friction was very simple and explained an awful lot. my favourite bit was that a car's tyres squeal when it stops suddenly because you've trampled hundreds of little demons to death.
Discussion reminds me a little of Einstein quote:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
The irony here is that this phrase itself is overly complicated. The only objectively correct understanding of the part "Everything should be made as simple as possible" renders the "but not simpler" part redundant. If a thing is as simple as it can be while still being that thing, then, if it were made simpler it would not still be that thing.
@@TroubleToby3040 There is another take on it: making things simpler, effectively a low resolution look at something where detail is actually needed, is a real issie. Over-simplification is a serious problem, be it deliberate or accidental/well-intentioned.
It’s like working out a problem in economics. You can bring in a million variables, then winnow out the ones that have minimal effect, and refine the problem until you come to the least cluttered way of looking at it. Or you can barge in and yell something about the Freemasons.
@@TroubleToby3040 I think Einstein was saying that people TRY to make it simpler at the risk of ignoring reality.
@@mrjones2721 This. People often recoil at complexity, especially when that complexity challenges some deeply held belief.
The problem arises with Ockham's Razor when it is presented as a "proof" of some idea, when the intent of it is not to prove anything, but rather to more quickly lead you to hypotheses which are likely to be correct.
Exactly 💯
It's like the doctors who say, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." Sometimes (rarely) it IS zebras, but first rule out the most likely things by testing for them.
And if you didn't plan on testing anything, you're probably better off just picking the one that brings you most peace.
The thing is that I would see a similar argument when I was doing psychology at college. The reason why is because, much of the time, when criticising a theory we would usually call a theory "reductionist in its approach" without necessarily explaining why it was reductionist. To counter that, our teacher would usually ask "why should we say something is more complex, if we cannot find evidence for it to be more complex than it is?". This was something I now also use as a teacher as it encourages students to follow up their argument with evidence rather than just using a key term hoping for marks.
Ockham's Razor, as used today, isn't even about simplicity. It's about making useless assumptions. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is pretty simple, but it's rooted in almost nothing but assumptions. Solutions that are built upon the fewest assumptions (thereby the greatest number of verifiable facts) is most likely correct, or very near correct.
@@LTNetjak - Not sure it's so much a "modern academia" thing. Philosophy is, and has always been, a bit messy. As a "soft science" not dealing in absolutes or empiricism, and often dealing in abstract ideas, it can be hard to nail down concrete definitions. It's just the nature of philosophy itself. Many things often come down to general definitions most agree on, but there are so many grey areas, exceptions and variations to concepts that the details wind up becoming ongoing debates. Welcome to Philosophy 101. 😂🤪
It is good for engineering also. The least amount of pieces to do something , the better.
A complex object is more likely to have something break as there are more parts that can break. A simple object is less likely to have something break as there are simply fewer parts that can break.
The KISS principle
The germans in ww2 are a prime example. Great if it works, but if t doesnt your in trouble
Yes, like the evolutionary mess called the human feet. It has so many moving parts leftover from our apes ancestors using it to hold on to trees, but now that it's used for walking as a bipedal, it is the leading cause of... well... all sorts of foot problems from arthritis on the foot to sprains.
Be wary of overconstrainment. Sometimes more pieces, that have some freedom of independent movement, are less likely to fail in actual use.
I am a scientist and I think you did a very good job with this. The principle behind Ockham's Razor comes up a lot when designing experiments and explaining them. The simplest explanation is not always correct, but you can save a lot of time by testing the simplest explanation first and building up assumptions from there as needed instead of jumping straight to a more complicated explanation. This process can even be used as justification for a more complex model by showing that simpler models generate worse results and why.
It is more than just the practical stuff though. A version of Occam's Razor is a provable result for learning systems / algorithms. Given two models which fit training data equally well, the one with the fewer free parameters is more likely to fit new data generated by the same process which produced the training data. Closely related to the issue of over-fitting.
Considering how many things can be described as learning systems (eg. evolution), it is actually pretty deep.
Well and Ockham's Razor doesn't play well when you have very complex and unintuitive systems. Because the simplest answer is absolutely NOT correct, and isn't going to work. Try applying Ockham's Razor to quantum mechanics for example, and you're going to be completely wrong almost every time.
@@andmicbro1 That's just misunderstanding Occam's Razor, at least the more formal version of it.
It isn't about how intuitive an explanation is, or how few words it takes to describe it. That's not what "simple" means in this context. It is more about how many parameters you have to set to make the model fit the data. A model/explanation with tons of parameters can fit most anything, but provides very little predictive power.
A ad absurdum example... "An omnipotent god did it" can explain anything, but tells us nothing about what will happen next. A god which could do anything is the least parsimonious explanation possible despite being a very short statement.
Troubleshooting would be a fair example. Is it plugged in, did you check your fuses, etc.
Essentially, isn't this how good police investigation work is carried out? Start simple and, keep expanding the investigation to the less likely culprits until you find the right one?
It just seems supremely logical to me.
I think it's interesting nobody in the comments seems to be bringing up how Richard Feynman was attacked by physicists for his simple diagrams that show how particles interact with each other. It's both proof of Ockham's razor in it's perfect niche, while also demonstrating that in science the simplest explanation is not always the correct one, especially in quantum mechanics. Physicists at the time couldn't accept that such simple visual (emphasis on visual) explanations could exist as quantum mechanics was viewed (and mostly still is) as something that cannot be understood intuitively, but only mathematically. Hence the difficulty in explaining these concepts to the lay person.
Useful lesson I learned some years ago as a junior software developer: really good code tends to look deceptively simple, like anyone could have written it. Simple readable code is /much/ harder to write.
Likewise as a tech writer: it's really hard to write in a way that's easy to read, with or without very technical detail.
What is the simple wrong quantum theory, and the more complicated correct one?
@@donaldhobson8873 It's not that the theory was wrong, it was considered too simple for quantum mechanics. I was referring to Feynman diagrams which are simple, visual representations of how sub-atomic particles interact. They were a huge breakthrough but people were reluctant to accept it because they just didn't think you could simplify anything in quantum mechanics that much, let alone visually represent it with a diagram. I tried to link an example but it causes errors on my comment for some reason. Just google feynman diagrams and you will see what they look like if you are curious
I remember there was this scientist who came up with a revolutionary breakthrough in... something, I don't know what. But, a reporter asked him if he could explain his discovery in simple terms that the average person could understand, and he said "No. The people who can understand it are already aware of it, the people who can't would need to spend a few years taking university courses on the subject to understand it."
I love that line you added at the end, Ockham's Razor combined with the anti-razor with "you can get a nice close shave just be careful not to cut too close" it's so perfectly explains the two systems of thought and really summed up the video nicely! bloody brilliant
People also tend to misuse Ockham's Razor when they clearly prefer one side or the other. "Everything else being equal" includes one's own bias.
"Simplest" in the context of Ockham's Razor means "requires the fewest new assumptions". GR requires fewer assumptions than Newtonian gravity to explain the recorded observations.
But Okham's Razor does not apply in this case as the experimental data clearly supports GR in most fringe cases.
@@spacecadet35 That's true, but the experiments that demonstrate that were specifically performed to test the discrepancies between Newton's and GR's predictions.
Occam applied before those experiments were ever devised, let alone carried out, because of observations of Mercury's orbital precession and some other things. Those all *could* be explained in Newtonian physics with appropriate additional assumptions. They are also accurately predicted by GR, but GR was devised in part to help explain those specific discrepancies. Consequently, it's the experiments inspired specifically by GR's predictions that bear the most weight.
Also, it's not really "fringe" anymore. GPS has effectively been an ongoing experiment in both GR and SR for decades now. As a result, we have more experimental evidence for both types of Relativity than we have for basically anything else.
I dont think it applies in this way because newtonian mechanics in fact does not accurately predict observations involving large distance/speed/mass/energy etc. So...
That's why relativity was necessary... to explain those. This is actually a good example though. Once your assumptions no longer make sense you need to search again and use the razor. So they didn't just say "aliens do it". So relativity has less assumptions than that that. Because it is testable.
@@themonkeymoo - Read "Edge cases" for "Fringe cases". In Physics in particular, and science in general, the ultimate arbiter of correctness is experimentation. Ockham's Razor is what you use until you get the results.
In the case of Mercury, it could be explained by one assumption using Newtonian Physics and at least two assumptions using General Relativity.
Also, Mercury cannot be used as a proof of General Relativity as it did not produce any new data. But it was good supporting data.
For most cases though, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is easier to use and just as accurate.
I've noticed a trend that at least some people display when arguing on the internets.
- They come up with painfully convoluted explains for simple things (ie: invent a conspiracy where none exists)
- They offer a painfully simplistic "solution" to an extremely complex problem.
I think the biggest issue is any idea can be as simple as you want, if you let it break from reality.
That's true, and Hitchen's Razor is more appropriate for those cases, but Ockham's Razor is still applicable. Take, for example, evolution and creationism.
There are facts and evidence that can be observed and agreed upon by both sides. Even the youth earth creation belief in the Aberhamic flood myth includes evolution from a smaller number of "kinds" a non-defined category of life, to the variety of species alive today.
One can use Ockham's Razor as evidence to support that between the two beliefs, the one that assumes evolution is possible and also that supernatural forces exist, is a less reasonable model than the belief that assumes evolution is possible and does not assume that supernatural forces exist, because it makes more and unnecessary assumptions.
If one believes that all can be explained broadly by supernatural forces, it can seem on the surface to be simpler than all the many fields of science counted individually, but to believe in the *super* natural is to implicitly accept the natural.
I've never seen Ockham's Razor as being about complexity but about assumption. A seriously complex explanation with zero assumptions is more likely to be correct than a very simple explanation with nothing but assumptions.
It's funny that you say that because I can think of many many situations that's untrue. Like think about the number of wrong answers to questions you can give with convincing and complex answers.
Like gravity. Gravity is the complex answer to why does shit fall. But it's wrong because gravity as a force isn't real it's just space and time warping around mass. Which is a surprisingly simple answer that makes very little intuitive sense or imo it doesn't seem intuitive
@@SuperNeospace did you skip this part "but about assumption"?
Like people who theorized that Trump colluded with Russia. Albeit that really isn't ockhams razor but just a plain and simple lie.
I think that is very well stated and I feel it gives me a better understanding. Thank you for that.
no, occam's razor is basically measuring two similar things and basically guesstimating that the one that's less complex, requires the least assumptions, is 'probably' right.
but a seriously complex explaination isn't 'even' with a simple explaination, and the 'equal weight' ish stuff is important for this.
Great video! We were taught a variant the razor in my chemistry degree, as "the less assumptions you need to make, the stronger your hypothesis is" . As a quick note however, in 8:50 I believe you wanted to say Heliocentric!
fewer assumptions*. The're countable!
Yeah, I caught that slip, too, he said geocentric, but clearly meant heliocentric.
@@dumdristig Yeah, me too. Glad I found this comment before I double posted that
@@dumdristig Yup, so did I. It's gonna confuse some; I think he should correct it in the Description section.
The geocentric model with its cycles & epicycles, is the work of Ptolemy, a couple millennia (or more) ago.
Fred
As both a philosophy and later a physics major I REALLY enjoyed this one. You were very complete in your explanation. You gave my mind a wonderful work out.
The problem with Ockham's razor is that people forget that it's only supposed to be applied to _unknowns,_ not to things that are well documented and/ or proveable. It's a useful tool for making educated guesses to fill in the gaps for something you can't _immediately_ explain. There are lots of examples of real, observable things that are bafflingly complicated, _especially_ when it comes to politics and advanced tech, that people will simply be unable to wrap their heads around and so will wave around Ockham's razor so that they can claim something along the lines of "obviously the simplest explanation... Is ghosts."
I find that ockham's razor is very useful to keep in mind while trouble shooting mechanical issues. A build design with the fewest failure points is often easier to fix, and makes more money than a more efficient design that breaks more often.
Interesting. I do the same in debugging programming. I also consider Occam's foundational to the process of any troubleshooting.
"Vacuum doesn't work":
1) Check the plug.
2) Verify outlet has power.
3) Buy a new vacuum.
Obviously, the steps in that simplistic example go from "requires the fewest assumptions" to requiring the most. I've also noticed that each additional assumption, whether in medical doctoring or in small appliance troubleshooting, adds more complexity and usually becomes more expensive. Now, it's debatable whether a bad circuit in your house is more expensive than a new vacuum but i think you get my drift.
@@StfuFFS the steps 1, 2, 3 had me laughing so hard for about 7-8 min straight, if only because I do the same thing with every printer i've ever owned.
"oh the ink dried up or its not printing? time for a new printer!"
Granted the price of a new printer is often cheaper than replacing the ink.
@@johnlawson1167 Right!?! This business model these ##%%@& printer companies have inflicted on people is unbelievably aggravating. Simon did a video on his Brain Blaze channel about ink cartridges where Danny said that most ink sales run a like 2,000% profit!
@@johnlawson1167 i have sworn a Klingon blood feud on these SOBs and their Great Cyan Lie!
It is also a reflexive principle of differential diagnosis. For instance, the first act of diagnosing a problem with electronics is to check that it’s getting power starting from “is it plugged in, is it turned on?” and ending with testing the wire from source outwards.
There’s something amusing about Simon making shaving jokes when clearly his face hasn’t been near a razor since William of Ockham lived.
As a fluffy faced shaggy-beard, I can attest that a beard like Simon's requires daily maintenance, or after a couple days it turns into a beard like mine.....
Good joke 😂
I'm fairly certain that he shaves his head which is rather close to his face.
Shaved Simon looks like Dobby. The beard was probably the savviest decision he's made thus far.
@@xerothedarkstar Yeah, I went back far enough once and was like "The fuck is this!?" Then I heard Simon's voice and I was like we're aborting out of here, we've gone too far back.
This was an extremely good synopsis of William of Occam and a great explication of teleology (without ever using that word). Thanks for that.
The "multiplication of entities" specifically referred to using a set of supernatural causes for what could just as easily explained by natural causes and so it was more a theological/philosophical tool, rather than a scientific or debating tool. You did an excellent job of showing how complexity can increase with each better theory in the discussion of gravity.
As such, I would never appeal to "Occam's Rasor" without using the phrase "unnecessary complexity" with the emphasis on unnecessary. That normally unused qualification is important and very helpful in showing why many conspiracy theories can be relatively easily called into question.
My father said it simply when I was young, and it stuck with me:
“There is beauty to simplicity.”
Just like everything else, it's situational. Nuance is more important than any go-to philosophy for problem solving.
But Marxism
I agree.
@@wordupninja what about it?
@@mikebar42 he was a failure and it always fails.
I agree, it's a rule of thumb rather than a fundamental law of the universe.
In most situations it probably is the most obvious solution that's the most effective, but that doesn't mean that outliers don't exist
Simon's beard is basically a co-presenter at this point! 😄
I watched an older video of his where he was beardless and it made me super uncomfortable 🤣
Who's Simon......I know only beard
Bro, it's been one for over a year now.lol
Yes, but he claim it as a dependent for tax purposes?
@@manaash4316 word. Shaved Simon looks like a house elf.
In the medical field we have an often used saying (normally related to diagnosis) "If you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras".
Closely related to Occum's Razor but slanted a bit for medical assumptions and the tendency to look for rare disease and conditions rather than the more common ones.
The trick is to check _first_ for common problems, while not jumping to any conclusions.
Very well explained. Pretty much the only practical application of Occam's razor iz a situation where you have several hypotheses explaining some observed phenomenon equally well. It is usually easier to first try to devise an experiment with the potential to falsify the simplest one. Then, if it passes, try with the next one, until you reach the decisive experiment that will falsify all your hypotheses but one. So, it is just a matter of "economy".
BTW, Mother Nature is under no obligation to make its laws simple, elegant or beautiful (although it often does). For example, Newton's laws of motion and of universal gravitation explain astronomical observations simply and elegantly compared to, say, flat Earth "theory", which has to invent new complications for every observation (and fails completely for some). So, here simplicity and elegance win. But then, as you pointed out, Einstein enters the scene with his complications (although, in principle, also elegant): without taking into account effects described by both special and general theories of relativity GPS satellites would not work. Sorry, Sir Isaac...
Fun new game: Count all the different ways YT's subtitles attempt to spell 'Ockham'.
I find Occam's Razor quite useful when speaking with an interlocuter from the UFO crowd. Any time someone says that a light in the sky is absolute proof of alien visitation, I use it to remind them that there are substantially more reasonable explanations for what we're seeing, including unknown natural phenomena. You can't see a light in the sky and then claim you know what it is, that it's from another planet, and that it's being piloted by aliens that definitely exist, definitely know we exist, definitely have the technology for interplanetary travel, and definitely use it to visit us (I believe they're out there, but I'll need evidence equal to the weight of the aforementioned claims to believe they're here and visiting us). The truth is, it's just a light in the sky and that's all we know most times. That's all we can say. Any other assumptions are just fabrications.
Go watch the fighter pilot talk about the tic tac ufo he saw with his own eyes.
@@enigma1247 You seem to be taking my comment a little personally. Sorry, that was no my intent. I'm just calling it like anyone without bias or wishful thinking should. None of them saw it with their own eyes. And even if they did, a "tic tac shaped object in the sky" is just that. You couldn't claim you saw anything more than that. To claim it is anything beyond that is guesswork and to claim it was an alien space craft is a massive leap and just making stuff up to explain something that doesn't readily have an explanation. Until the weight of the evidence equals the weight of the claim, critical thinking skills demand the only logical conclusion the explanation is far more earthly than anything else. Otherwise, this might as well be a religion. Can you imagine if scientists just jumped to conclusions about things with no information? We'd still be in the Stone Age.
Riki, I like how clearly you write.
As someone who likes the UFO phenomenon and stories, I agree. Even a theory like "secret government experimental aircraft" is much more simpler and likely than alien visitations lol. Although the idea of being visited by aliens is fun to imagine, until they actually land in a densely packed area and step out their spacecraft holding up the 🖖 greeting with "We come in peace", well it'll only remain a fun idea to imagine and wonder about
@@enigma1247 clown
One of life's little pleasures is taking a break from Simon's videos and coming to see how that beard is coming along
'When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.' Clearly this advice is biogeographially contextual.
8:45 That’s the Heliocentric model, Simon - Helios being the Greek god of the sun…
Occam's Razor can be useful, for sure, but yeah, I've had arguments with people where I know for a fact the issue at hand is significantly more complex than their theory, but they insist because of Occam's Razor, they must be correct.
Remember: your ignorance of a subject and inability to comprehend a more informed/experienced person's argument isn't proof you are correct.
To be fair, the 'theories' those people might have are not to be called scientific theories, for they are completely unscientific.
The more I learned about the topics I was interested in (mostly maths,b and a bit of physics, chemistry and programming), the more I learned how nobody could know everything even in just that one area of science anymore. You need at least a year of study to truly understand something that is the least bit complex, and if you don't find anything complex, you're missing something. Even something as simple as a polynomial is so useful and complex that basically any scientific topic will use them at some point, and basically any program uses them. And if you add polynomial fractions to the mix, it gets even complexer. If you haven't studied math at university level (directly or indirectly through physics for example), I can probably tell you some complexities that you will have never considered, yet I'm only in my third semester.
I truly cannot think of a topic that is simple enough so that you could understand it extensively after a year, or even 10. But unless you are interested in that topic, you will probably just ignore all that complexity whenever you don't actively need it
What these people forget is that Occam's Razor is not a standard of evidence, but a standard of efficiency in the absence of evidence.
@@ohauss Bingo. If something is proven, Occam's Razor _no longer applies!_ Or rather, Occam's Razor _MUST_ factor in a valid observation.
If something complicates the explanation, you only get to ignore it if it has zero effect or doesn't actually exist.
You're not wrong.
Yes this. I've had dumb netizens try to argue and tell me I'm lying about actual experiences I personally lived through (or things I have firsthand knowledge of) **just** because "Occam's razor so therefore your experience can't be true and you're lying". So many people misunderstand and misapply it far too much.
In some contexts Occam's Razor cuts away the nonsense and gets to the most obvious solution. In medicine, however, the most obvious solution isn't always correct, although insurance companies and medical practices often would like it to be. I think that sometimes doctors get so used to quickly being able to identify the cause of a problem that when the usual medications and treatments don't work, it's hard for them to change gears and approach the problem more holistically.
Or for a doctor to think about what ELSE might be causing the symptoms. I had to hunt for more possibilities MYSELF and show the doctor the most plausible of the possibilities I found. Turned out that possibility I suggested was, indeed, what's causing my symptoms. Unfortunately, there's not much that can help with it. 🤷🏽♀️
I think people need to realize two things about Occam’s Razor.
1.) it’s not “the simplest argument is most often right”, it’s “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. In other words, “the argument which makes the least amount of unnecessary assumptions is usually right”, or as Simon put it “all things being equal, the simplest argument is often correct.” That’s an important distinction.
2.) even the rule is not an absolute. Even in its popular paraphrase, we say that the simpler argument is USUALLY right. Not ALWAYS right.
When these are taken into account, Occam’s Razor is totally valid.
I always saw Ockham's Razor more in the sense of "the theory that requires the least amount of assumptions is probably the correct one" not "the simplest answer is usually correct" to be honest. If your explaination as to why X happened is based on "if A,B and C happened it would cause X" vs "Y happened so when Z happened it caused X" the latter is probably right.
Keyword: probably. It's a rule of thumb, unlike what those who treat it like a law(and replace 'probably' with 'must') would like to believe
I prefer the wording "when faced with multiple competing hyptheses, the one that makes the least assumptions should be preferred".
That is good, but Occam's Razor is a proposition meant to be a fundamental truth that when solving any problem, the probability of finding what it more likely to be true the "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” which are included in and considered for that problem are included. It is does not mean the simplest or least answer is correct, but instead it is a foundational system of behavior, a chain of reasoning, that whatever the problem is, one should not include unnecessary complications, unnecessary data, unnecessary variables, etc.
If you leave out a required piece because you are trying to simplify things it could result in an incorrect answer, thus while not including unnecessary things you need to include all necessary things.
You are entirely correct, that is how it is widely used in science for hypothesis generation. The actual way William of Occam, or Ockham, formulated the concept, in what concept, is almost totally irrelevant. It's just a label for a thinking tool widely use in science. The everyday idea that it's about the simplest explanation, being the correct one, is a complete misconception of how it is used.
For me it is "the longer a chain of events must be to explain an outcome, the less likely it is that it happened".
So if 10 things could have happened that each had a 90% chance, or a single thing could have happened that had a 40% chance, the latter is more probable.
Correction: Heliocentric rather than "geocentric" model of the solar system. 8:41 or exactly at 8:50 - Love the accuracy and effort put into these great videos, so please keep up the great work. ; ) @TodayIFoundOut
Blame the researchers, scriptwriters and editors.
Yeah I caught that too.
I'm surprised no one at the filming caught that...
It was a good take and rather then repeat it they probably thought "Eh, none of the millions of people likely to watch this will probably notice" ;)
!:-)
@@niccolom Simon is the only one "at the filming". He just sits down in front of a camera and reads a script. And as he's mentioned numerous times on Business Blaze, he's pretty zoned out for the process and doesnt really internalize anything he's saying
Great video! Occam's razor seems to be good preliminary guide, when reviewing theories, just like statistics In general.
But improbable Is totally different thing than impossible, and coversely probable is very different than inevitable. This is why I feel many popular theories and axioms, like simulation argument and Drake's equation, are nothing more than amusing thought experiments.
The key to the correct modern usage of Ockham's Razor is "makes the fewest assumptions" which is not equal to simplest. An idea or solution can be quite complex but make very few assumptions, such as various concepts in quantum mechanics. On the other hand, some concepts can be quite simple but make a great many assumptions, such as claims pertaining to the supernatural. When people state it as "the simplest solution" it's a red flag indicating they're either misunderstanding or misusing it.
I always thought of it as a probability assessment. The more probable something is, the more likely that's the answer.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, not a tree.
That's circular reasoning. How do you decide which of two theories is more probable? How is a Heliocentric galaxy more probable than a geocentric one?
@@SmileyEmoji42 The scientific method tells us that experimentation is the way to go. Prediction, and observation to see if your prediction comes true is a good indication that there is something to your theory.
The heliocentric model predicted and explained all kinds of phenomena which the geocentric one couldn't.
@@SmileyEmoji42 No, it's not circular reasoning. It's how one forms a hypothesis, which is the first thing you need to begin the scientific method. Or did you flunk your science classes?
For example, if I see the math problem "(5x)²" and I know ahead of time that the value of x must be equal to or greater than 2 (learned from previous testing), I can immediately rule out the possibility of the result being a number less than 100. It's not circular logic to make that educated guess. It's in fact a good starting point to ensure you don't get the answer wrong, because if you end up with a number less than 100, you made a mistake. Of course, if the premise that x must be equal to or greater than 2 is wrong, then of course so will be the results. While there's no guarantee your premise is correct, if the premise has plenty of evidence to back up the premise, it's probably a correct premise.
This is also why good science is challenged, such as through peer review. This is all high school education level stuff. It's not some super big secret or anything that only the "experts" can understand. You have to be able to make educated guesses at times, and Occam's Razor is merely a guide to aid in the guesswork. It's not the final step in finding a solution to a problem. It just aids in speeding up the scientific method. If both hypothesis seem to be of equal merit, you test the less convoluted one first. That's all it is.
@@Gottaculat Read more. Write less. Deducing that something is totally impossible is not an "assessment of probability" and not a use of Occam's razor.
@@matthewrayner571 You're missing my point entirely. If you consider Occam's razor to mean "pick the most probable" then it would be meaningless - Nobody ever picks the least probable (by their estimation - whatever that is). Occam's razor is a rule of thumb for guessing the relative probability of 2 options not the other way around.
My anti razor being: "The more you study something the more complicated it becomes."
More of a counter to the common usage of Occam's razor than the actual razor itself but still.
Could be the Dunning-Krueger's Blunt Object. The more you know about an topic the more you realise you don't actually know that much.
Your anti-Occam's Razor is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems? That doesn't work out the way you think it does, mathematically speaking.
I find that there’s a sine wave of apparent simplicity. The more you study something, the more complicated it becomes, until you reach a point where all the smaller moving parts coalesce into larger, simpler movements. You become so familiar with the complexity that it stops feeling complex.
@@mrjones2721 Proofs of complex mechanisms in mathematics and Physics will always express and create more complexity, that's the fractal nature of the universe. Incompleteness theorems, Kurt Godel. You can feel as familiar as you like, it doesn't make it any less complex, quite the opposite in fact. We'd say that's 90% of the joy of mathematics.
@@mrjones2721 So yeah, a sine wave, definitely ebbs and flows of familiarity, good metaphor!
The best formulation of the razor I’ve seen is that “between two explanations with equal predictive power, the one that requires the fewest new assumptions is to be preferred.” Occam’s razor doesn’t rescue a simple explanation full of assumptions, nor does it eliminate a very complex explanation that explains and predicts a phenomenon more accurately.
Ockam's razor states that your sudden influx of thousands of runtime errors is probably not due to thousands of deprecations of modules, but rather is more likely due to a misplaced semicolon preventing the proper execution of those modules.
This is not always the case however, as sometimes the jump from 2.7.9 to 2.8.0 does deprecate everything, and suddenly you have to relearn everything you know about 3D modeling and python scripting. (Or just keep using 2.7)
Can someone count to see how many times Simon has used Ockham's razor to determine the outcome of a Casual Criminalist script?
Simon and Kerry King use Ockham's razor to get such a close shave on their respective noggins. Slayer!
I was actually here in the comments to say "Thank you" to Simon for making this video as he uses it so often and I wasn't sure the actual meaning/theory of it.
Once or twice I've heard of "Ockham's razor" but never knew what it meant. Indeed, today I found out something new, so thank you :)
Pretty sure you've never heard of "Ockham's" razor, you probably have heard of Occam's Razor though, since that is what is being discussed we assume that's what you mean.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
@@aick Simon's title spells it "Ockham" (and if you believe that is incorrect, feel free to try to flag his attention to have it corrected, lol), but the spelling isn't my issue. Verbally, I have heard of "Ockham's/Occam's razor, but just never knew what it meant.
@@BewareTheLilyOfTheValley Aick has his/her panties in a twist over different, acceptable spellings of Ockham. While Occam is the more common spelling, Ockham is the way the city William of Ockham is from is usually spelled, so it is also an acceptable spelling.
@@QBCPerdition I thank them for their assistance but it was admittedly a bit pedantic regarding the spelling, lol. Also, hello, Aick if you read this, no hard feelings :)
@@aick From your link: "Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae)"
Maybe you should have read your own link first?
love how this host opens up by asking if people used okhams razor to sound smart, and then he goes on to do everything in his way to sound extra smart.
Perfect length and placement for the native ad. I started the video and put my phone in my pocket. By the time I fumbled it back out to slip through the ad, the ad was complete. I got the gist. Go to square space for square things for your space. And now a nice video!!! Later ✌️
The interesting thing about Copernicus' theory was that it was too perfect to be true. Using exact circles to describe the motion of the planets around the sun, while aesthetically pleasing, resulted in predictions no more accurate (if even that) than Ptolemy's epicycles. Johannes Kepler wrestled with the "Mars problem" until he realized that the sun sits at the focus of an ellipse, not the center of a circle. To the extent that an ellipse is more complicated than a circle (more parameters are needed to describe it), it represents a failure of Ockham's razor. (To be fair, Kepler benefited from more accurate astronomical data, supplied by Tycho Brahe, than was available to Copernicus.)
Finally, I think I understand what Ockham's razor means now.
I would disagree that Kepler is more complex than Copernicus since the two theories do not predict to the same degree of accuracy. If you want to force Copernicus to work as well as Kepler, you would need to add additional correction factors to do so, resulting in it being more complex than an elipse.
@@dubsed In fact, some people (if I remember, Tycho) added epicycles. Kepler didn't require them.
@@sydhenderson6753 I don't know if epicycles were used for the solarcentric models to account for the differences between circular and elliptical orbits. I know they were used for the geocentric models to account for the apparent periodic backwards motion of planets relative to Earth. I think those still end up being circular though when you shift them to be solercentric.
@@dubsed Not only did they, but Copernicus himself used epicycles in his model. Kepler finally made them unnecessary.
Occam's razor
Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor, also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony, is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." The idea is frequently attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham, a scholastic philosopher and theologian, although he never used these words.
I'll never look at my chair the same way ever again. LOL. My chair identifies as, um, a chair, and wants to be called, "Your Chairness." Love it.
Definitely one of the best written pieces you've ever been given to deliver. Informative, balanced, eternally relevant.
Generally speaking, when someone brings up Ockham's razor in a discussion, it suggests to me that he is unversed in both the subject at hand... and Ockham's razor.
As a methodology, however, it's very useful. Test the simplest hypothesis first. In less-pompous circumstances, that's known as going after the low-hanging fruit.
Usually when I've encountered people using ockham's razor they have no idea what they're talking about. It has turned into a stupid buzzword on the Internet. It's very frustrating to see it being used to justify creationism or conspiracy theories.
@@gecko8948 I've just as often seen it used to oppose creationism and as an attempt to debunk actual conspiracies.
@@kennethmiller2333 it can be used as both in a simplified form, because people don't actually understand what they're parroting typically, even if they've got good intentions. It can be used to argue for either.
One reason why Occam's Razor is so often misapplied is that it's so often misquoted. Even this video did not explicitly specify the necessary proviso: The simplest explanation which explains all the details (not just the convenient ones).
@@carolthedabbler2105 Can you really say it's misquoted when it was never really stated by Ockham, himself? How do we define the canonical form of it?
Personally I prefer Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." It got has practical uses... daily.
Great video as always.
Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." THANK YOU! Great Useful Informative video - as usual! Always Great Stuf. Peace & Health
It's valid. It's all about choosing explanations that are more likely to happen over those that are less likely. And if you criticize this comment, I will pick your spelling and grammar apart.
Its a gillette not a schick
*for a proper noun
Or
*for proper nouns
Bully boy .!!
Horror Habit: In the ‘form’ that it’s often quoted and thus misused, it’s bollocks! In your understanding of it, again, that’s bollocks. Respectfully,!🤣🤗
“Naw, this, simply, is not, true” Shatner
If ockmans razor doesn't work, just call your opponent an idiot. This is an effective strategy in making them understand that you are right, no matter what crazy claims you have.
Yeah I do that to flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers.
Or accuse them of bring an NPC and tell them to wake up. It’s highly persuasive.
I mean, at some point that's inevitable. Even if you do have an absolutely airtight logical argument with demonstrable facts, if you're arguing with a serious cognitive disability or someone with serious mental health issues, your only options at the end are to just walk away. It's not necessary to call them an idiot, or crazy, but it does happen. Nobody's perfect.
For your consideration I would submit the idea of a “you’re mamas so fat” joke or a middle finger. These methods are far superior and, quite honestly, far more effective means of persuasion.
ahh you must be a common visitor of r/atheist xD
Beautifully written and explained. Thanks for posting.
The closed captioning keeps saying "Arkham's Razor" and "william of Arkham" which makes it all so much funnier. or more terrifying.....
Razor + anti-Razor = Safety Razor?
It's valid, but only insofar as you understand type 1 and type 2 error as well. Also, if not covered in the vid, it's not the "simplest" explanation, it's the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Rather critical nuance.
Speaking as a philosophy teacher, the *real* wording of O's R is "do not multiply entities beyond necessity", which is to say that any explanation should strive to be as simple *as possible*. In popular discourse, people seem to misunderstand this and assume that a simple answer should always be preferred, but most simple answers have to miss out important details. A person might come to believe that all they need to do in order to lose weight and feel healthy is to eat better, which is a simple answer but not necessarily a correct one. Think of just how many other things a person will need to do in order to lose weight, such as getting more exercise and sleeping better. Alongside that, they will need motivation in order to start working towards their goal, and they may even have a body type that cannot easily lose weight. There are almost always complex factors that go into any accurate description of something, and simple answers shouldn't be trusted.
While not as fundamental I always enjoyed Hanlon's razor.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I can't help but think about it every time someone says "assume good intent".
I’ve literally never heard ockhams razor in the context of an argument. I’ve only ever heard it after coming to an obvious conclusion after exhausting all other possible answers.
For example: “my computer isn’t working.” Ockhams razor dictates it’s likely just not plugged in, or it’s broken. So, if you spend hours checking the internal components, the fuses in the wall, and your internet, only to then discover that it simply wasn’t plugged in, that’s okhams razor
8:40 You meant to say heliocentric
I noticed that! He said geocentric, didn't he?
@@DrivermanO ye lol
The actual phrasing of the principle of parsimony is :
" _All things being _*_equal_* , the simplest explanation is the best."
If there is _no way_ to distinguish between two hypothesis, then choose the simplest. If there is any way to distinguish between them by experiment, comparison, or some other form of further study, then _that_ is the best way to choose the better hypothesis.
Hot take before I watch it: yes, all else being equal Occam’s razor is a special case of bayes theorem that just says the theory that requires the least updates to priors tends on average to be true more often. Now I’ll watch and see if I was wrong.
A more accurate statement of Ockham's razor is, "All things being equal, the simplest explanation *that accounts for all the relevant observatioal data* tends to be the correct one."
Bastardizing it to simply "the simplest explanation tends to be correct" misses the entire point. In reality, "All objects with mass tend to fall towards each other, in direct proportion to their mass" *IS* the simplest explanation.
Just because people don't understand *why* doesn't actually make it complicated.
Disprovability is the key to scientific inquiry, to be sure. But OR frequently gets weaponized by people who mistake familiarity for simplicity.
Gravity, for example. "All celestial bodies fall towards each other in proportion to their mass, and in accord with basic laws of motion" is simple. "Sometimes stars go backward because God does a whoopsie" is actually incredibly complex, and requires infinite "special case" explanations. But it's less threatening to human egos than accepting that we're not the center of Universe. That's not the same thing as "simple."
Another great, if fictitious, example: In the movie Contact, at the end, James Woods mentions Ockham's Razor, and asks Jodie Foster, "What's more likely, that aliens beamed us a signal for a super-tech travel machine, or that John Hurt's eccentric billionaire pranked is all?" Then he leans back with a smug, "gotcha" smile.
But OR doesn't ask what's "more likely." It asks what's simpler. And spoofing an interstellar signal would be hopelessly complex. One of the ways radio telescopes and arrays work is that they determine distance by triangulating from different places around the globe. And something in a near-Earth orbit would never be mistaken for a signal from 20+ light years away.
In fact, Ockham's Razor *always* argues against conspiracy theories, because the conspiracy is always more complex than things simply being what they appear to be. And while some conspiracy theories turn out to be true (our government, all governments for that matter, have done shady, illegal shit), the number that end up being true, versus the number that get dreamt up every hour, are vanishingly small.
Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk on why Ockham's Razor is still relevant in the modern worls.
This video is of unrivalled quality. The enthusiasm delivered by Simon, the highly intelligent wording and fluidity of the writers, the pristine audio and video, plus the length and in-depth look into this topic are astounding.
These channels that Whistle Boy is a part of are easily the best educational content on TH-cam.
Well done, as always 🤟
You must be easily impressed.
Time consuming & entertaining, yes.
But it's just a regurgitation of the past.
And not necessarily correct.
Good grief.
The best advive i ever heard was "remember, its a logical device, not a solution. Youre supposed to use it, logically, to FIND solutions, not replace them"
I fucking love this man and how much not only he grinds, but how much he teaches and how much he cares about everything from his sponsors to his viewers. An absolute legend
He’s just a script reader for hire.
In fact he frequently “breaks” and laughs when he reads something that is accurate but contradictory to public opinion that he’s always accepted as true.
He is also very upfront about that being the case.
If you write an educational essay, you to can pay him to read it in front of a green screen so you can make your own Simon videos.
Can you do the history of The Thunderbirds?
NOT the TV show, the airshow.....haha
The aircraft are always evolving, the history is decades long, tragic and packed with unmatched skill entertaining millions.
Thank you from Nellis AFB, home of The Thunderbirds!
I thought you were asking about the mythical giant bird.
The key word is "often." It's not always. It's not absolute. It's ... generally speaking ... a pretty solid way to approach a problem or question.
William of Occam turns up in Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose':
"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus"
"Yesterday's rose stands only in name, we hold only empty names."
is the final line of the book. The title may also be an allusion to the nominalist position
in the problem of universals, taken by William of Ockham. According to nominalism, universals are bare names: there is not a universal rose, only a bunch of particular flowers that we artificially singled out by naming them "roses".
Ptolemy: ...and thus, I invented Spirograph!
As for Occam's razor: if available evidence more supports theory A rather than a convoluted theory B, then it stands that theory A is probably the correct answer. If more evidence is uncovered then that evaluation can be reconsidered.
Occam's razor is very useful in the subject of evolution and across the creation of scientific theories as a whole. The more complicated and larger portion of assumptions that you have to make to put forth a theory, the less likely that theory is to be true. Thus, statistically it is very useful to come to a scientific conclusion but only if paired with the rigor of the scientific method.
See, this is a problem. Making assumptions is good as long as you seek to prove those assumptions. By presuming a theory is wrong because you made multiple assumptions can result in the wrong result in itself.
For example, there is a large amount of study in the area of epigenetic where people can pass experiences to their offspring, something that for a hundred years was dismissed as ridiculous, primarily because it made assumptions. We now have heaps of evidence that your experiences do directly impact your offspring genetically through epigenetics.
Applying ockhams razor to this issue actually delayed the work on epigenetics by at least a few decades, with some scientists being heavily criticised in the 80s and 90s for suggesting such.
@@JoelReid That is a fair point on the potential pitfalls of the thought process; however, I'd wonder if that is inevitable due to the limited amount of funding available for research and targeting what is most probable to yield results that are valuable. By taking the process of simplification and working bottom to top, some topics may be missed or delayed at the cost of a greater efficiency on the whole (ex. granting funds to research that is more likely to yield useful data at a higher likelihood).
Furthermore, I wonder what influence social aspects of the scientific community may have on such a point, as it would be disadvantageous to challenge the norms of widely accepted theories, something that isn't by necessity an issue with Occam's razor so much as it is with how research is funded and the human social elements that influence the conversation around that research.
Either way, good point and I agree that it is indeed something to be mindful of.
@@JoelReid The way I like to think about it is that the hypothesis has to explain the data. Once it doesn't, then it's not useful. So epigenetics really started taking force once people started realizing that they couldn't explain the data and evidence using 'standard' genetic theory. This is akin to the example mentioned in the video - Newton's laws held out (and are generally still useful) until people started noticing things it just didn't/couldn't explain. This forced a re-examination of the theory and the development of general relativity.
Ockam's razor for me is that the simplest hypothesis that explains the data is usually the best.
@@matthewbardeen4821 i may not have been clear: while hypothesis based upon occam's razor may be useful, that does not make them correct.
In science we use theories that best explain things and have yet to be disproven... but that does nto make them correct, it simply makes them not yet disproven.
People have to realise that absence of proof, or disproof, does not necassarily equal reality. You see this best in law where guilty and not guilty verdicts are statements of evidence supporting proof, not necassarily reality... science works quite similarly, but the difference is people tend to take science as gospel more than they do so with law.
simon simon simon. When your script writer wrote this pierce he used Ockham's razor. Articles tend to too much detail. You have to simplify or too much detail tends to boredom. Ockham's razor has helped me so much. If you truly know a subject, you can explain it in a few sentences [Richard Feynman]. He also simplified his teaching by doing diagrams. I write theology and if it starts to get complicated, I start again. When I grasp the subject, it is so simple and understandable. Through Ockham's razor I finally grasped the book of revelation. It took me 35 years of sweat. Elon musk uses Ockham THE BEST PART S NO PART, THE BEST PROCESS IS NO PROCESS. Through Ockham and other principles. In every field they use okham's razor. In invention, maths, biology etc.
I mainly see it being used as in: "You're wrong, because Ockham's Razor." In which case, it is absolutely invalid, since it's essentially a tool to allow your interlocutor to plug their ears and hum while you attempt to use dreaded logic on them. The worst case is the theory of evolution vs creationism. Creationism is perfectly and fundamentally simple, compared to the vast complexity of biological evolution, but creationism is wrong, and evolution is true.
Next video: Is Logic Rational?
*Sponsored by Google.*
I am familiar with Occam's Razor being that the simplest model that actually explains the relevant observable phenomena is the best one to use. An important note -- this version does not say that the simpler model is correct. Relativistic mechanics is more accurate than Newtonian. But for most projects here on the surface of the planet, it is better to use Newtonian.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that when the orbital model of the atom was proposed...err, rutherford?.... he said it obviously could not be true but might be useful. All these years later it is still useful
@@raykent3211 Useful to communicate some introductory chemistry, maybe. The basics of atomic orbitals aren't very hard to understand though, and give a much better idea of how things actually work.
If you make a plan so convoluted and multifaceted, noone will ever believe it was a plan to begin with - that's Ockham's razor
In Medicine the concept is very helpful in focusing one’s thinking about possible diagnoses. Usually it is phrased as “the most parsimonious explanation is most often correct.” There is general recognition that it is not always accurate, so you have another well-worn consideration when things don’t quite fit: “true, true and unrelated.”
Sometimes it’s funny listening to shorthand exchanges between physicians rounding on patients and trying to narrow down differential diagnoses.
Resident #1: Well, Occam’s Razor.
Resident #2: But maybe, true, true and unrelated?
It's an exercise in logic. No wonder most don't get it 😎
Potato
I only apply it to conspiracy theories, which go to great and unlikely lengths to explain something because they don't like the obvious answer.
Me, too.
There are conspiracies being perpetrated right now and that is no theory.
On the thumbnail: "Keyboard warrior's weapon of choice."
And I thought it was a razor blade because you know all those folks hate themselves
Getting serious "Are Chairs Real?" Flashbacks lmao
You change definitions of 'simple' half way through. The definition you yourselves gave was: Entities should not be multiplied _beyond necessity_, you can not then argue that later models of gravity are growing needlessly complex when that complexity was a 'necessity' for all observed behavior, which it was.
Even something as mindbogglingly complex as general relativity is simple within the context of the phenomena it can describe. Or to put it another way, the ad hoc changes you would need to cram on to classical mechanics to get it to work with the universe to the same degree as relativity would very rapidly become an ungodly mess. It certainly wouldnt be, by any definition I know, 'simple'.
A real test for the razor is: Has it, when properly contextualized as I described, ever been wrong. As far as Im aware the answer to that is: no.
Its possible at the very fringes of science deep in to quantum physics or when general relativity has reached its limits that this breaks down and it could even be contributing to why we cant crack some of those mysteries, but up till this point the universe has proven itself to be astonishingly well ordered.
I feel this video tows the line a little too much for those who oppose Occams Razor as almost no serious researcher really does, the major complaints about it come from those trying to peddle woo, and some of the more fundamentalist religious. Think flat Earthers, or crystal healing, people who require explanations to be wacky messes as they have literally no coherent models of their own.
Have you seen the actual formula represented by E=MC2? Occam's Razor tried to trim away the entire theories of relativity and quantum physics.
The part most people miss is the "all other things being equal" part.
@@muninrob "Occam's Razor tried to trim away the entire theories of relativity and quantum physics." No, Occam's Razor did no such thing. "Beyond necessity" is always part of Occam's Razor. "Simpler is always better" is a hugely incorrect interpretation of the principle.
@@Elitistb616 You must not have read many journals from the time those theories were released. The use of Occam's razor almost ended both theories before they could even be tested.
You could say that the statement "simpler is always better" disproves Occam's razor on it's own, by applying the razor to it's self.
@@muninrob Again, Occam's Razor isn't "simpler is always better". It is “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” A more complex theory, if it provides more explanatory power, will be preferred by Occam's Razor, as it has a legitimate claim on necessity. Testing would then be the final arbiter, as it always is in science.
I don't know who you think attempted to use Occam's Razor "to trim away the entire theories of relativity and quantum physics", but such an attempt would quite simply not have been Occam's Razor. It would have been a fairly common usage of People Often Have No Clue As To What Occam's Razor Actually Is.
I swear this guy could read a phone book out loud and I'd hang on every word
Don’t give him ideas.
As a retired career troubleshooter, I view Ockham's razor as a dull axe. There are things it is helpful for - primarily looking for a starting point when there are no unusual aspects or no time to learn more - but it is crucial to be ready to abandon that in an instant. If you are driving with a broken gas gauge and the engine quits, we expect that to mean we ran out of gas. Yet, the same factors that lead to living with a broken gas gauge work to make the entire vehicle likely to be poorly maintained. It can also be a random failure, like failed ignition module or fuel pump or... well, putting gas in the vehicle ain't part of a path to a brighter future.
Devotion to "the usual" can be disastrous. A loved one started experiencing shortness of breath and a squeezing sensation below her left shoulder when trying to walk across the living room. She was a nurse, her nurse best friend was present, and I am a first aider. We all agreed these are cardiac symptoms. Her doctor said, "I know it's asthma but you're not wheezing." That diagnosis shut down all future paths there so she went to the ER where it was determined to be not a heart attack but obviously cardiac, so she got a referral to bypass the three month wait list. The cardiologist said it was what everybody but the doctor knew, and three stents fixed the problem.
"Ockham's Razor" is a fine example of confirmation bias.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that this video wasn’t sponsored by dollar shave club or Harry’s
Ockham’s Razor is a great philosophy to apply to many engineering problems. If you can achieve a solution with less complexity, there’s less that can go wrong which often leads to higher reliability.
It’s a very simple practice in testing your logic! Don’t compound variables that should not be compounded! The Simple answer is typically the most common to be correct
this is how religions start. word...
I had an in life version of this concept today. Im a locksmith and I was having issues with a lock not picking. So I jokingly grabbed a random key from the new key system i was installing and said screw it and put it in the key hole and the SOB turned. When i arrived i was informed no one had the keys and before leaving i was told that i would have to pick every one. That one key opened all the doors I needed to do saving me so much aggravation lol
When arguing on the internet, it’s important to remember Halon’s razor:
"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
It’s a bit off-point, but almost the entire video had each hemisphere of my brain battling the other.
My inner ‘strict rationalist’ and my inner ‘admirer of the arts and humanities’ are very easy to entice into argument. I try to feed them both equally, so they usually end up fairly matched against one another.
You too !?
Glad I'm not the only one. Lol
your inner "strict rationalist" may have been misled by a certain kind of "scientific" propaganda which comes from naive people who would rather oversimplify by "citing" occams razor than actually think. There is so much glib hindsight about which explanation is more likely to be true from someone who knows 100 years later in history. Years of ai research have shown that it is impossible to evaluate proabilities for all possible outcomes of ordinary situations. We must act before the end of time, so the principle itself is nearly useless because we cannot meet the requirements for its application, "the simplest" is undefined and "the most probable" is incalculable in advance of acting. So dont lose sleep and dont apply occams razor to your art or you'll end up with sterile minimalism.
I think a lot of people still use it to sound smart. Right up there with calling something a "red hearing" or telling someone to stop "gas lighting". Most of the time people don't know what these actually mean. Someone the other day called me a "Manchurian Candidate". Really? I'm a sleeper agent waiting to here a code or see something specific that awakens my hidden secret agent and assassin skills? Ooh I wonder if I know how to fly a helicopter! I've always wanted fly one those! 😅
Yeah. I had a girl tell me once, "You are my sunshine", and I said, "Oh REEEEALLY?! I'm a photon that took millions of years to move from the sun's core to its surface before being launched toward planet earth only to land on you? I don't THINK so!". We've been happily married for thirty years.
Oh, by the way, it's "herring", not "hearing"; and "waiting to *hear* a code", not "waiting to *here* a code". And without context, we can't tell whether the person calling you a Manchurian Candidate was making a valid point.
@@OfTheGaps wow. How much do I owe you? For the grammar correction I mean. I could use a good secretary. (For f***s sake I'm typing on a phone. Blame auto correct ya Nazi. Hah see what I did there?)
And no, there is no possible way calling someone a "Manchurian Candidate" would make sense. It's not a metaphor for anything, it was just someone stupid trying to sound smart while attempting an insult towards me. If you must know, the topic of discussion was how silly astrology is. Now please tell me. In what possible instance could you use those exact words in that exact order and have the phrase make sense? Please I'll wait. But don't take too long. I don't hire slow employees.
@@OfTheGaps haha just reread this. So based upon your statement, and the context of these posts, that would mean "you are my sunshine" is a phrase that you believe smart people say. Instead of a simple line from a child's nursery rhyme. Your ABSOLUTE logic astounds me sir! 🤣
The key that makes Ockham’s Razor most valid is that all potential explanations are equal.
People really forget the "needlessly" part of "variables should not be needlessly multiplied"
I think it applies best to theories that are essentially impossible to disprove, with that being mostly in the religious and spiritual side that have no supporting evidence.